Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #311976; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Saad, and Meter; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Bona Fide Factual Uncertainty / Statutory Construction Defense [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s claims for no-fault attorney fees, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for penalty attorney fees because conflicting medical opinions created a bona fide factual uncertainty as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive the PIP benefits at issue here.
Plaintiff in this case brought suit against State Farm seeking to recover wage loss benefits and replacement services. State Farm initially denied the plaintiff’s request for benefits based upon an “independent medical examination conducted by Dr. Ronald Taylor.” Dr. Taylor’s opinions conflicted with medical opinions given by plaintiff’s treating doctors. Following a jury trial, a jury found that “plaintiff was entitled to wage loss benefits but not replacement services.” Plaintiff then requested statutory attorney fees under MCL 500.3148, which the trial court denied, awarding her only $578 in taxable costs. Plaintiff sought reversal of the trial court’s denial of attorney fees, arguing that the “defendant’s denial of benefits was unreasonable, as there was not a bona fide factual uncertainty.”
However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and held that “[t]e trial court did not clearly err in determining that defendant’s denial was reasonable” given the results of the defendant’s independent medical examination. In this regard, the court reasoned:
The record reveals that Dr. Taylor was board certified in spinal cord injury and medicine. Dr. Taylor examined plaintiff, who complained of neck and back pain. His examination revealed no objective findings and no objective basis for plaintiff’s complaints. He also reviewed MRIs of the cervical spine and lumbar spine which showed only degenerative changes. According to Dr. Taylor, plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement and could return to work. He also opined that plaintiff did not require further testing or treatment, and she did not need replacement services.
While there were differences of medical opinion between Dr. Taylor and plaintiff’s treating doctors, there was no obligation for defendant to reconcile these competing medical opinions. Moore, 482 Mich at 521. In addition, the jury’s verdict confirmed that a factual uncertainty existed concerning plaintiff’s entitlement to wage loss benefits and replacement services. In this case, the jury found that plaintiff was entitled to wage loss benefits but not replacement services.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion in denying no-fault attorney fees pursuant to MCL 500.3148.”
